Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shippy v. Harold, 96-6748 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6748 Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6748 PERRY SHIPPY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. HAROLD; D. MOSS; C. EVANS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-307) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-6748



PERRY SHIPPY,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

D. HAROLD; D. MOSS; C. EVANS,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-96-307)


Submitted:   October 17, 1996             Decided:   October 24, 1996


Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Perry Shippy, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re-

lief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L.
No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-

ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shippy v.

Harold, No. CA-96-307 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




                                  2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer